Idag fyller lillasyster 30 år. Hon bor i New York. Jag läste en lång intervju med henne i DI Weekend för ett tag sedan. Mycket bra. Tjejen är smart. Vi får hoppas hon blir lycklig med sin Chris. Det var för sorgligt det som hände med Jonas Bergström Hur kunde han vänstra med den där norska Tora! Hur han gjorde bort sig! Men han kanske är lyckligare nu med af Klercker som är väninna med Louise Gottlieb som Madde firade sitt kalas med på Djurgården. Louise fyller 30 senare i år. Undrar hur det mötet kändes för Madeleine. Hon kanske hälsade lite artigt och bytte några ord. De är ju i överklassen och har fått lära sig hyfs. Varför Madeleine har färgat håret mörkt förstår jag inte. Hon som är så snygg blond. Så lik prinsessan Sibylla, sin farmor. Men hon vill väl kunna vara anonym i New York. Förstår henne.
Madeleine bär en Järvsödräkt med sommarförkläde. Hon fick den när hon fyllde 18 och det är klart att hertiginnan av Gästrikland och Hälsingland skall klä sig som en äkta stinta! Hälsinge-socknarna Järvsö, Delsbo och Bjuråker har nog dom vackraste folkdräkterna i landet. På bilden syns en Delsbodräkt. Har att göra med linet och skogen som bäddade för välstånd och dom stora hälsingegårdarna som kan ses som små slott. Hälsingland hade ingen adel och människorna här är vana att styra och ställa med sig själva. Avskyr övermakt och fogdar o s v. Grattis Madeleine på din dag och till att du förärats en sån vacker dräkt. Skål och hurra!
Vill ni se min dräkt? Kolla under Om mig!
Helena Palena 
Instämmer i HURRANDET för Hälsinglands Överhuvud, Världens vackraste
Princessa, Hennes Kungliga Höghet Madeleine!!!
GillaGilla
Ja bilden vid artikeln visar då ingen Delsbo dräkt. Synd, för den är nog den vackraste av alla!!
GillaGilla
Lena: Det har du rätt i! Korrigerar.
GillaGilla
Helena,
Royalty is fine and dandy – and a sort of distraction from the hum drum daily existence. We idealise the person who happens to be born with a golden or silver spoon in the mouth – and like our idol movie star we see the beautiful, the perfect and the ideal type in such a person. For my part – I see us all for what we are – mortals – homo sapiens and ones inhabiting the one planet we all call ”home” – the earth.However, I too must admit that I get caught up in the embarce of ideals from time to time – then I wake up after the dream and come back to the hard realities of life:-
AFTER THE DEBACLE OF THE GEORGE JR. PRESIDENCY – I TOO THOUGHT THAT OBAMA REPRESENTED A RAY OF HOPE, A BEACON OF LIGHT AND THE DAWNING OF A NEW DAY. MYSELF A LAWYER, ALBEIT NOT A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – I REALLY THOUGHT THAT IF NOTHING ELSE, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF HIS TRAINING AND THE VALUES THAT PROPER LEGAL TRAINING INSTILLS IN ONE – OBAMA WOULD HAVE HAD RESPECT FOR, AT THE VERY LEAST, THE ”RULE OF LAW”. I AM NOW TRULY SADDENDED AND DISAPPOINTED. AND IF ROMNEY IS ELECTED – HEAVEN HELP US ALL!
What Is US Game Plan?
By Patrick Seale
June 09, 2012 ”Information Clearing House” — US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies seem increasingly problematic. His expanded use of missile strikes by Predator drones against targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere – now being launched at a rate of about one every week – seem certain to create more “terrorists” than they kill. They arouse fierce anti-America sentiment not least because of the inevitable civilian death toll. Obama is said to decide by himself which terrorist suspect is to be targeted for killing in any particular week, as if to confer some presidential sanction on operations of very doubtful legality.
Even more worrying is Obama’s apparently wilful sabotage of two diplomatic initiatives, one by Europe’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the other by Kofi Annan. Ashton has been leading an attempt by the P5+1 to negotiate a ‘win-win’ deal with Iran over its nuclear programme, while Annan has been struggling to find a negotiated way out of the murderous Syrian crisis. Obama seems intent on compromising both initiatives.
Ashton managed to launch the P5+1 talks with Iran in Istanbul on April 14, after having agreed upon the ground rules with the chief Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili. She pledged at that time that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would be “a key basis” for the talks, thus sending a clear signal that Iran, as a signatory of the NPT, had the right to enrich uranium up to 3.5pc for power generation and other peaceful purposes. She also declared that the negotiations would “be guided by the principle of step-by-step approach and reciprocity,” thus giving a strong indication that the sanctions would be lifted in stages once Iran gave up enriching uranium to 20 per cent and provided convincing evidence that it was not seeking nuclear weapons. Iran responded favourably to this approach and the talks got off to a good start.
However, at the next meeting on May 23, in Baghdad, the talks ground to a virtual halt. No progress of any sort was made save for an agreement to meet again in Moscow on June 18-19. The early optimism was dispelled because Obama had hardened the US position. There was to be no recognition of Iran’s rights to enrich lower-grade uranium – indeed the P5+1 refused even to discuss the subject – and no easing of sanctions. On the contrary, Iran was faced with the prospect of even stiffer sanctions coming into force on July 1. The only sweetener was an offer of some spare parts for Iran’s civilian aircraft in exchange for an Iranian pledge to freeze 20 per cent enriched uranium. Iran was asked, in effect, to give up its trump card in exchange for peanuts. It was no surprise that Tehran considered the miserly offer insulting.
Obama seems to have been persuaded that Iran, already reeling under crippling sanctions, would meekly submit to American demands if still more pressure was applied. This was a fundamental error of judgement. Far from submitting, Iran reacted defiantly and hopes for a win-win deal evaporated. There are now no great expectations of a breakthrough at the Moscow talks.
So what is Obama up to? He seems to have adopted Israel’s hard-line view that Iran should be compelled to close down its nuclear industry completely – a clear deal-breaker. It is not all together clear whether he is doing so to counter accusations of weakness from his Republican challenger Mitt Romney or whether his hard, uncompromising line is intended to stave off Israel’s much-trumpeted threats to attack Iran in the coming months which, in view of the American electoral calendar, would inevitably suck in the US.
Obama has already joined Israel in clandestine warfare against Iran. In a major article last week in the New York Times, David E Sanger revealed that “from his first months in office, Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities …” The US and Israel then jointly developed the cyber-weapon Stuxnet, which caused considerable damage to the centrifuges in Iran’s Natanz facility.
By any standards, launching Stuxnet against Iran was an act of state terrorism. That Israel should engage in such practices is not surprising: its entire regional policy is based on subverting and destabilising its neighbours so as to ensure its own supremacy. But how can the US, which claims to be the supreme guardian of international order, justify such lowly behaviour?
Not content with sabotaging Ashton’s efforts, Obama is also undermining Annan’s difficult mission in Syria. The American president pays lip-service to Annan’s peace plan while, at the same time, secretly coordinating the flow of funds, intelligence and weapons to Bashar Al Assad’s enemies. Numerous sources attest that the US has taken upon itself the role of deciding which among the various armed rebel groups deserve support. One must only hope that in his eagerness to bring about the fall of the Syrian regime, Obama will not fall into the trap of funding and arming rebels, many of them linked to Al Qaida who have flowed in from neighbouring countries to fight the Syrian regime.
In short, Obama seems to have embraced the argument of Israeli hawks and American neo-conservatives that bringing down the Syrian regime is the best way to weaken and isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran, sever its ties with Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements and eventually bring about a regime change in Tehran. The puzzle is to understand what has happened to Obama. This former professor of constitutional law was expected to correct the flagrant crimes of the Bush administration, such as the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the water-boarding, the network of secret prisons where torture was routine, the practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’. Instead, by his own violent and questionable acts, he is widening the gulf between the US and the Muslim world.
No less a person than Henry Kissinger has, in a recent Washington Post article, reminded the US of the dangers of humanitarian intervention in Syria. “If adopted as a principle of foreign policy,” he wrote, “this form of intervention raises broader questions for US strategy. Does America consider itself obliged to support every popular uprising against any non-democratic government …?” If Al Asad is overthrown, he argues, a new civil war may follow as armed groups contest the succession. “In reacting to one tragedy, we must be careful not to facilitate another.” Kissinger’s main point is that states are sovereign within their borders. The US may have strategic reasons to favour the fall of Al Asad, but “not every strategic interest rises to a cause for war; were it otherwise, no room would be left for diplomacy.” In other words, the world should support the Annan peace plan and give it time to work.
Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle East affairs, including ‘Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East’ and ‘Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire’. –Gulf News
This this article was first published at The Nation
GillaGilla
Det var så mycket jag orkar inte läsa så här på kvällskröken God natt
GillaGilla